Unbelievable! Zero tolerance speed limit in NZ

[kiwifoz]

I'm currently NOT happy. The police here have decided to defy reason and good sense this summer, and have placed a zero-tolerance limit on our roads. So, if you exceed the posted limit by so much as 1kph!!! you are able to be ticketed.

Needless to say, the number of tickets issued last year when the tolerance was 4kph was 6 times the year before, when the tolerance was 10kph. I reckon they were a bit short of cash this year with the cut police budget.

https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/325200/police-target-any-speed-over-posted-limit

Anyway, this is going to ruin my holiday. If I don't get a ticket I'll be bloody lucky I reckon. I'm just glad my speedo's dead on with the 215/65s. I may actually run my phone GPS on the windscreen mount for an exact speed.

And for anyone who says that it will make our roads safer, well.
- Firstly, the UK has just RAISED their speed tolerance to 138kph on their motorways, and put in place proper driving education and a raised age to compensate.
- Secondly, do you have any idea how much time you spend looking at the speedo when trying to stay at that speed?
- Thirdly, if our modern cars are safer than ever then why the hell are we going slower?
- Fourth, how on Earth am I supposed to overtake without breaking 100?

The only plus side is that I might save a bit of petrol.

Comments, commiseration and general outrage below, please.

 

[taza]

That's ****ed!

 

[Ratbag]

Geez, KF that's disgusting!

About 15 years ago, I got done for a ridiculous speed - 135 kmh in a 100 kmh zone. I admitted to the court that I was doing "about 117-118 kmh" in our Camry.

The police evidence consisted of a hand-held radar gun reading taken at 1,452 feet.

According to the manufacturer of that radar gun's web site, the device should never be relied upon at distances over 1,000 feet. And only over about 500 feet if mounted on one of their special tripods. I was not allowed to tender this as evidence unless I could produce an expert from the company in the USA to attest that their own web site was correct!

I was also not allowed to tender evidence from NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology in the USA) regarding their work on the accuracy of speed measurement devices undertaken for NIST by the Michigan State Police Force, which showed these devices to be highly inaccurate in common situations.

I was also not allowed to tender evidence from the ACPO in the UK (Association of Chief Police Officers), where they allowed 10% + 3 mph above the limit before the motorist would even be challenged. At 60 mph limit, that's 69 mph.

All of these allowances were made with the understanding that:

a) speedometers are inaccurate, and can vary according to some road conditions; and

b) that the radar devices (actually properly called LIDAR devices are only accurate under controlled conditions, and when used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions - something that the Victorian Police are specifically exempted from doing by law ... again ...

We don't seem to need external nasty people to wreck our countries, our duly elected governments and their officials are busy doing it all the time ... Not good.

 

[DavAmb]

Here in Victoria tolerance was reduced to 3kph over the limit well over a year ago. This was in reaction to the loss of revenue brought about by the wide-spread adoption by road users of GPS for monitoring speed.

They've also been using near-IR light sources for photography so that the tell-tale flash is no longer evident and for safe night-time use.

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday DA

Make that well over 10 years ago, mate.

The then government had a serious budget problem (overspending on trinkets of little or no value to us as a community ... ), and needed the extra revenue so that they could declare a "surplus".

Very rare for any government to reduce revenue streams once they are in place IME.

 

[Kevin]

1 klm is bloody ridiculous!

 

[DavAmb]

Gidday DA, Make that well over 10 years ago, mate.

Was it that long ago RB - I'd no idea. Recall reading about it in one of the car rags a year or so back. I remember some State advertising (ok - propaganda) exhorting us to "see the bigger picture" when it comes to velocitax, but this campaign didn't last for long. Maybe it had the desired effect. The whole system runs on a carefully managed metering-out of guilt to keep us from realising how absurd it really is. No-one dare mention that it's only breaking a law and not committing a crime. Imagine if we treated real criminals the same way; If we hid behind bushes and took photos of them going about their crimes and simply sent them fines rather than apprehend them in the act. There is no argument for covert speed cameras that will withstand any logical scrutiny.

 

[idw]

The stuff in the newspaper was when they changed it from a % of 3 to a km/h limit i think.

vic has 3km/h for mobile cameras and 2k/h for fixed cameras i believe (happy to be proved wrong).

As ridiculous as it is for a camera tolerance, I find it relatively easy and painless to just follow the speed limit. On my commute to work i pass 6 fixed cameras, 8 fixed red light cameras, and 4 mobile camera hot spots. Only takes a couple of seconds of carelessness and I've lost my license, It's not difficult to drive attentively and mind the camera traps.

The whole zero tolerance thing on the other hand is just stupid, I want the idiot who's weaving through traffic and speeding up then slowing down, who then proceeds to speed to overtake someone who's doing the limit fined. Not the person who took their eyes off the speedo to head check or merge, or look at what the other traffic is doing, who let the needle just tick over the limit while doing so to be fined.

 

[DavAmb]

I too have a long commute IDW, not as many revenue cameras as the Calder perhaps, and I rely on my cruise control to make the routine journey tolerable. Dunno about yours, but mine can put me over the threshold on a slight downhill if set for 100ks. So even though I might have every intention of doing the right thing, I can still be fined!

How are you supposed to overtake a car doing say 95ks? The amount of time you would spend on the wrong side of the road in such an action is ridiculous.

To coin Wolfgang Pauli - "that's not even wrong".

 

[kiwifoz]

I bet this puts the price of radar detectors through the roof. I'm seriously tempted to get one.

 

[stilson]

Without being able to tender said evidence RB, did you beat the charge?

Innocent unless PROVEN guilty my hat

 

[Ratbag]

The whole subject is steeped in political correctness and hiding the blatant grab for yet more revenue from the already over-taxed motoring public. Mostly it's plain BS, IMNSHO.

Take this quote from the SA government, here:

https://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/towardszerotogether/safer_speeds/average_speed_safety_camera

where they say:

"Actual speed is the speed of the vehicle at a single point in time. Fixed speed cameras such as mid-block safety cameras or safety cameras at traffic signals detect a vehicle’s actual speed as the vehicle passes the part of the camera system that detects speed."

This paragraph (one of thousands ... ) would be much clearer if the words in bold (political correct speak ... ) had the word "speed" substituted for them.

i.e.

"Actual speed is the speed of the vehicle at a single point in time. Fixed speed cameras such as mid-block speed cameras or speed cameras at traffic signals detect a vehicle’s actual speed as the vehicle passes the part of the camera system that detects speed."

When mandatory 40 kmh speed limits around schools were introduced here in Victoria, the number of children killed or injured in them actually increased the following year. Not that this is statistically significant, but it does highlight that these things are largely politically correct BS.

When Premier Joan Kirner cut the speed limit on the West Gate bridge from 100 kmh to 80 kmh, it achieved two things:
a) it reduced traffic to a crawl for around 4 hours every day; and
b) it decreased the death rate "by 100%" [sic].

While the figure is mathematically wrong, it is also highly misleading. There had been 2 deaths on the West Gate bridge the previous year, and this had fallen to one in the next reporting year. Again, not statistically significant. I suppose one should not expect an ex-teacher to be able to work out simple percentages, but ...

I am in no way whatsoever minimising the human cost and suffering associated with even one death; however, I agree with those who have said that it is a blatant money grab, disguised as " ... doing something about the road toll ... ".

IMO, about the only things that have impacted on the road toll have been better designed and built cars, with better rollover angle, better occupant protection; the compulsory fitting and wearing of seat belts (Victoria was the last State to adopt this latter, IIRC); better road signage for corners in particular; and precious little else ...

I am also not suggesting that blatant breaching of the road laws should be encouraged or countenanced either. However, there is a huge gap between doing 160 kmh in a 60 kmh zone and doing 64 kmh (momentarily) in a 60 kmh zone.

Ditto with red lights. 0.5 second tolerance on turn arrows off an 80 kmh road is nothing short of ridiculous.

BTW, breaching the Road Rules in Victoria IS a criminal offence. The legal concept of a misdemeanour was legislated out of existence about 8-15 years ago, IIRC.

Many camera detected alleged offences have also had all right to any defence legislated out of existence ...

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday ST

Without being able to tender said evidence RB, did you beat the charge?

No. AND the policeman lied his head off; committed Statutory perjury by changing the court appearance date on the summons served on me to be different from the date on the copy filed with the court ...

So it goes on. How can we expect our children to respect either the Rule of Law or the rules of law when the State patently ignores these things, both the principle and the legislative instruments?

Innocent unless PROVEN guilty my hat

Quite. Guilty unless and until proven by the defendant beyond any reasonable doubt that no offence has been committed.

Don't even start me on how this was dealt with by VicRoads. Suffice it to say that they cancelled/suspended my licence while the matter was still before the court; notified me of their action two days before the expiration of the period of suspension.

Then I had it 'properly' suspended again by the court.
VicRoads told me to " ... just drive anyway, as you have already served your period of suspension ... ".
You can just see the chances of successfully arguing THAT in court ...
Somewhere between nil and FA ... .

 

[catchya]

I bet this puts the price of radar detectors through the roof. I'm seriously tempted to get one.

Using front mount radar detector 's just sends a message to traffic cops that you are most likely to break speed related road rules.

Save your money, do the speed limit!! no matter how ridiculous it is.

 

[Ratbag]

do the speed limit!! no matter how ridiculous it is.

Yeah, if only we knew what our speedos were telling us ...

IIRC, a speedo in a car has to be within ±5% by (some) law or regulation.

An electronic speedo cannot be calibrated, AFAIK.

The Road Rules require that we abide by a +3 kmh tolerance, AT ALL SPEEDS. That's an absolute tolerance for a value that changes by a percentage value ...

Sense does not appear as a term in any of these equations ... !

IMFAO, an allowance similar to that in the (still) UK would be appropriate: i.e. a +5% allowance to compensate for potential speedometer error, plus a fixed margin for driver error of (say) 5 kmh at all speeds.

This would allow for 63 + 5 = 68 kmh in a 60 zone, and 105 + 5 = 110 kmh in a 100 kmh zone.

It is my belief that almost all motorists would perceive this as a fair rule; balancing safety with a modicum of common sense - the latter being a commodity that's apparently left at the door by governments ...

According to the TAC advertising here (the infamous "wipe off 5" campaign), going 5 kmh faster means that it takes you around 10-20 m further to stop from 65 kmh than it does from 60 kmh (or 55 kmh vs 60 kmh - their advertisement is about as clear as it is meaningful!!).
Any way you slice it, this is arrant nonsense, and does absolutely nothing for the credibility of either the TAC, or their campaign, or the government, or the police force.

The real downside is perhaps not quite as obvious. It is that we come to see both the government and the police as our enemies, and their blatant disregard for the Doctrine of the Rule of Law, and the abomination of the legislative provisions calls both LAW and laws into disrepute, along with the government and the police. This has serious long-term ramifications for the cohesion and stability of our entire community.

 

[ateday]

I have my own views on speed limits.
Sure it is far more important to be aware of what is happening around you using both eyes rather than constantly flicking, with attendant focus changes, from your speedo to the distance.
I prefer to drive safely, I don`t ignore speed limits and try and stay within them even though in many cases they are stupid and just revenue raisers.
That stupid slogan used in QLD that "every k over is a killer" takes the cake. It can be but not if you know what you are doing and don`t drive like an idiot.

 

[idw]

How are you supposed to overtake a car doing say 95ks? The amount of time you would spend on the wrong side of the road in such an action is ridiculous

I work in Moorabbin, My cruise sits at around 95km/h in a 100 zone judged by my gps and i still tend to be overtaking most people on the fwy. The calder is the least of my worries as it doesn't have cameras in my commute, it's the ringroad/westgate/kingsway/nepean hwy that's my problem.

As for the overtaking, why overtake someone doing 95km/h in a 100? Taking traffic into consideration it doesn't get me anywhere any faster. But it does take abit of time to overtake someone who's doing say 80-90 in a 100, but if it is safe to overtake them to begin with that's not an issue imo, that could also just be the volunteer firefighter in me knowing what a head on car accident looks like.

 

[ateday]

In theory and you will be booked if you exceed the speed limit when overtaking.
It is crazy . So what do you do, sit in the wrong lane for an inordinate length of time and then get booked for driving on the wrong side of the road.
The whole way we look at road rules and road safety needs a thorough overhaul with the emphasis on safe driving and not revenue raising.
Can`t see it happening though.

 

[idw]

The whole way we look at road rules and road safety needs a thorough overhaul with the emphasis on safe driving

Probably agree with you there.

 

[guzzla]

How are you supposed to overtake a car doing say 95ks? The amount of time you would spend on the wrong side of the road in such an action is ridiculous.

Just don't overtake then. And it has always been against the law to exceed the speed limit when overtaking.

In QLD the once very generous tolerance has been progressively tightened over the last 2 years but the authorities won't reveal what that tolerance is.

And if low speed limits are challenged the authorities can always fall back on the latest statistics that show annual road fatalities in QLD have fallen from a high of almost 700 in 1973 to an expected low (since records have been kept and in spite of a doubling in population) of less than 240 this year. How can anyone really measure the influence of better roads and safer cars in reaching that figure?